One page summary of ATC privatization

roncachamp said:
I don't recall Trump saying much about costs when he called for ATC privatization last June. I remember him saying tracking airplanes with GPS would improve on tracking by radar, that it would result in reduced delays and greater safety, but I don't remember anyone explaining how it would accomplish those things.
Click to expand...
Uh Oh! The "T" word has been said.
 
Of course, the other thing that gets lost in all of this is I can't imagine a more governmental function than air safety. Since many, if not most flights are interstate, regulating it at the Federal level makes good sense.
 
roncachamp said:
If you feel I'm wrong explain how FERS is an ATC issue.
Click to expand...

uh, ok. I'll try and connect the dots for you but you'll probably just argue about what the word "the" means.

The issue at hand in favor of privatization is cost. An ATC employee costs XXX dollars. A government ATC employee costs XXX retirement dollars. A non government, contract employee who does not participate in FERS costs XXX dollars less.
 
jaybee said:
uh, ok. I'll try and connect the dots for you but you'll probably just argue about what the word "the" means.

The issue at hand in favor of privatization is cost. An ATC employee costs XXX dollars. A government ATC employee costs XXX retirement dollars. A non government, contract employee who does not participate in FERS costs XXX dollars less.
Click to expand...

You are making the assumption that private sector employees cost less.
In skilled labor, that is actually a false assumption in most cases.

Tim
 
tspear said:
You are making the assumption that private sector employees cost less.
In skilled labor, that is actually a false assumption in most cases.

Tim
Click to expand...

Interesting point..

Skilled labor costs more. Add on a specialty within that skilled labor and you can see a 10X jump in costs (salary increase). Add in if that labor does not have a secondary tangible (e.g. new pilots are relatively cheap as flying is fun - and some will nearly fly for food.)

So, we have a skilled labor pool where the only employer is a national monopoly (essentially the privatized version of the FAA). Add in the reality of "talking" on the radio in a structured and potentially stressful environment can't be as much fun as flying...

Hmmm - how will privatization save money?
 
brian] said:
Hmmm - how will privatization save money?
Click to expand...

Because. Everyone knows government is inefficient and wasteful.
The reality, private companies are no better or worse then government when it comes to efficiency or cost control. It comes down to incentive and human nature. Often where private companies have saved money compared to public services it was because of one of two factors. One, by privatizing they created a competitive market. This provides an incentive for the company to do better or be cheaper or be faster... The second case, and the one seen more often, is by eliminating requirements for the private company compared to the public one.

The question is, which condition applies here. And if the second condition, do we really want to wave such a requirement?

Tim
 
tspear said:
You are making the assumption that private sector employees cost less.
In skilled labor, that is actually a false assumption in most cases.

Tim
Click to expand...

I did not make that assumption. I simply stated that private sectors would not participate in a government funded retirement plan. Please reread.
 
jaybee said:
I did not make that assumption. I simply stated that private sectors would not participate in a government funded retirement plan. Please reread.
Click to expand...
You are making that assumption. Federal retirement benefits are part of the total costs and benefits for an employee.
I ran a consulting company; when you are competing against the government employees to determine if a project will be outsourced, you were required to add in all costs, and so were the feds. The end result, I got to see the costs in detail. No matter if I used BLS data from DOL, or looked at the pure numbers from GSA, or even from the agency. What matters in all cases, is the loaded cost. And for the feds, that includes retirement.

Tim
 
tspear said:
You are making that assumption. Federal retirement benefits are part of the total costs and benefits for an employee.
I ran a consulting company; when you are competing against the government employees to determine if a project will be outsourced, you were required to add in all costs, and so were the feds. The end result, I got to see the costs in detail. No matter if I used BLS data from DOL, or looked at the pure numbers from GSA, or even from the agency. What matters in all cases, is the loaded cost. And for the feds, that includes retirement.

Tim
Click to expand...

Well, golly gee willikers the CBO doesn't agree in 4 out of 5 areas...

52637-home-cover.png


https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/52637-federalprivatepay.pdf
 
@jaybee
Read the report in a little more detail.
What percentage of workers for the Feds are in Washington DC, versus private sector used in the report? I will give you a hint, 16% versus 2%. Why does this matter, salary and benefits are very much related to location. Washington DC is one of the most expensive locations in the country.
What is that trite phrase? There are lies, dam lies and statistics....

Pick a specific location, then pick equivalent skilled positions. Then you can compare.
That report is was written to answer a question which was a political hatchet job.
A better question, what not be the median or average across the nation;but by major location or within economic zones compare. If you must do so on a national level, normalize it and compare ratios.

Tim
 
jaybee said:
uh, ok. I'll try and connect the dots for you but you'll probably just argue about what the word "the" means.

The issue at hand in favor of privatization is cost. An ATC employee costs XXX dollars. A government ATC employee costs XXX retirement dollars. A non government, contract employee who does not participate in FERS costs XXX dollars less.
Click to expand...

So the ATC issue is cost, not tracking? What's your source for that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top